ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Prediction of delayed graft function after deceased donor kidney transplantation: development and temporal validation in a single-center cohort.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelayed graft function (DGF) is a common complication of kidney transplantation and is associated with poor graft outcome. Accurate prediction of DGF is crucial for timely intervention and optimization of post-transplant management. Although predictive models for DGF have been reported, whether more complex supervised learning approaches provide meaningful incremental value over simpler and more interpretable models remains uncertain.
methodsIn this single-center study, we conducted a secondary analysis of an ongoing prospective cohort of consecutive kidney transplant recipients at our center, using data from patients enrolled between June 2023 and April 2025 as the development cohort. The models were validated in an independent retrospective cohort of consecutive recipients transplanted between January 2019 and May 2023. Nine individual supervised machine learning algorithms and 84 stacked ensemble models were constructed and compared. Predictors were selected in the development cohort using univariate analysis followed by bidirectional stepwise logistic regression (LR) based on the Akaike information criterion. Model performance in the validation cohort was assessed in terms of discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. Model interpretation was supplemented using Shapley additive explanations.
resultsThe development cohort and validation cohort included 140 and 314 kidney transplant recipients, respectively. Four donor-derived variables were retained in the final predictor set: donor body mass index, donation after circulatory death status, cold ischemia time, and donor terminal serum creatinine. Among the nine individual models, the LR model showed the best overall performance in the validation cohort, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.839. The best stacked ensemble model showed similar performance and did not provide meaningful incremental benefit over the LR model.
conclusionsIn conclusion, in this single-center cohort with independent temporally distinct validation, a parsimonious LR model based on four routinely available donor variables performed comparably to more complex supervised learning algorithms and stacked ensemble approaches for DGF prediction. These findings support the practical value of a simple and interpretable model for pre-transplant DGF risk stratification, although further external validation is needed before broader clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.